How did Judas die?

Todd, I know you are fully committed to Biblical inerrancy. As a person who was raised in a tradition that does not accept Biblical inerrancy, I am a bit stupid about it. I wanted to kick this topic off with the easiest and most simple issue. How do you deal with the miriad of obvious conflicts in the narratives of the Bible? There are a whole slew of them, which I am sure you are very familiar with, but for an example, I picked this one at random (well, not quite random, I wanted one without any important theological implications):

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and
went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his
bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

So, how did Judas die? In one account he hanged himself, and in another he fell headlong and his bowels gushed out. How do you explain/approach these kinds of disagreements between different accounts in the Bible?

Todd, which is it, NOMA or POMA?

A month ago, Todd put up a post addressing the interplay between science and scripture. He included a quote from McGrath discussing Stephen Jay Gould’s idea of the NOMA (nonoverlapping magisteria). Basically, Gould says the magesteria (i.e. the domain of teaching authority) of science and religion do not overlap. Religion has no say about the things investigated by science, and science has no say about ultimate meaning. To quote Gould:

The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the arch cliches, we get the age of rocks, and religion retains the rock of ages; we study how the heavens go, and they determine how to go to heaven.

Gould goes on to talk at length about how the NOMA principle permits Catholics to believe in evolution so long as they accept the divine infusion of the soul. In other words, the NOMA principle (according to Gould) tells religion that scientific theories are none of its business and to keep its big mouth shut about them.

McGrath, to his credit, rejects this NOMA nonsense and suggests the POMA (partially overlapping magisterial) principle, “reflecting a realization that science and religion offer possibilities of cross-fertilization on account of the interpretation of their subjects and methods.”

Todd makes two comments in his post which raise big questions for me. First, he wonders if “McGrath, Beckwith, and Ostler all believe in POMA, whereas some conservative evangelicals and Christian fundamentalists believe in nonoverlapping magisteria of Scripture.” Really? Christian fundamentalists believe in NOMA?!? I asked a question about this in the comments at Todd’s blog, but it went unanswered. Reading more closely, I decided my confusion here may be cleared up by a final statement by Todd in which he says that:

I believe that God uses Scripture as the final magisteria for evangelicals.

This leads me to wonder if what Todd really means is that science and religion do overlap (POMA) but the Bible has the final say on everything. This would be the opposite of the Dawkins position, which is that science and religion overlap, but that science has the final say on everything. If I’m correct, then what Todd means by NOMA is not what Gould means by NOMA. Of course, rather than debating overlapping vs. non-overlapping, perhaps the critical question is about what the magisterium of science really is. If you argue that science never has teaching authority, that is another way to get to a non-overlapping model, but a very different non-overlapping model than the one suggested by Gould.

So, Todd, I have lots of follow up questions about your views on the interplay between science and religion, but let’s start by answering this simple bedrock question about NOMA and POMA. Have I understood you correctly? When you say evangelicals believe in NOMA, do you mean that they believe the Bible trumps science in all matters in which they may overlap? When we talk about an issue like, say, the age of the Earth, is science subordinate to the Bible which says the Earth is only a few thousand years old?

Todd, are Mormons Christian?

Let's kick things off with some cardio. I'd like to know where you come down on this one Todd. Are Mormons Christians in your opinion? Please give your reasons one way or the other.

Over at HI4LDS, a commenter posting under the alias AAT referred to Mormons as non-Christians and I took issue with it. Todd stayed out of fray, so I don't know what his opinion is, but I assume he holds the standard evangelical view that Mormons are not Christians. As I said on that thread, I think this view is problematic. There are a whole bunch of possible explanations an evangelical might give for why Mormons don't qualify as Christians, but knowning Todd, and knowing that his allegience is to the Bible, I am guessing that his reasons will revolve around the Bible. To rework (slightly) my comment from that post, I think that this hypothetical position requires one of the following:

1. Mormons are not really sincere believers in the Bible, which we can tell by the fact that they don't interpret the Bible like evangelicals do. In other words, the Bible is so clear in its doctrine about God that disagreement with evangelicals is evidence of insincerity on the part of the person disagreeing.
2. Mormons are simply too stupid to be Christians. In other words, the Bible is so clear in its doctrine about God that disagreement with evangelicals is due to the the person disagreeing being too stupid to read the words and comprehend their clear and unambiguous meaning.
3. The Bible must be interpreted according to non-Biblical creeds and that the title “Christian” is fundamentally defined by those non-Biblical creeds. Interpretations that do not follow those creeds are non-Christian by definition.

I'm not sure what other options there are if our non-Christian status is to be justified based on our differing understandings of the Bible. Help me out here Todd.

♥ issues for Todd

Todd Wood sprang onto the blogging sceen a little over a year ago with his blog Heart Issues for LDS and the bloggernacle started getting input from a Baptist pastor. Over at New Cool Thang I blog about Mormon philosophy and theology (mostly) and over the last year I've had a number of exchanges with Todd. Lately, I have been realizing I have a lot of questions for Todd, but I don't really want to clutter up NCT with them, so I thought I would devot a new blog to interacting with my e-friend Pastor Todd.

I am not especially qualified to interact with Evangelical theology, but I do have genuine questions and I feel confident that Todd can set me straight given his M.A. in Theology and his Master of Divinity degree.